Posted by slid64er on 6/9/2011 11:05:00 PM (view original):rmancil - You finally understand. It's socialist, not capitalist. Every educational institution is a non-profit. That's also why they support the NCAA and participate in intercollegiate athletics despite it being a money hole for >90% of them. Schools have a much larger mandate and the NCAA helps them fulfill it.

And besides, it's no one right to pursue a professional athletic career just as it's no one's right to be a doctor. It takes certain training and sacrifice in either case, but just because you want it doesn't mean that everyone else gets out of your way to make it easy for you. Yet you want to cater to that 0.1% that do make it. Tail wagging the dog.

Again, you also can't differentiate between an employee and student athlete. If you can't make the differentiation, that's on you. If you can't understand the cost/benefit analysis for all student athletes, that's on you too.

Anyway, I'm done. Believe what you want. I'm not going any further into a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

You like that tail wagging the dog a lot don't you? First off the non profit is a legalism in fact no school or organization can in fact run a loss year after year unless of course your the federal government and get to print the money every institution makes a profit.

On the professional front your a pro at anything when you cash a check. You may want to be a Doctor or a star QB but if you fail to have to brain power and the work ethic you won't be a doctor and if you lack the skill set no matter how smart you are you will not be a QB.

It is no mean trick to be a student and a employee.

When in doubt insult.

1) You fail to realize that receiving something for free that would otherwise cost money is actually receiving payment. The free tuition is payment. Any additional would open cans of worms that would allow the few rich schools to buy players and make it easier for schools to cheat under the guise of payments, They do receive a hefty payment.

2) Colleges are not businesses. Most are governemnt funded non-profit organizations that main purpose is to educate young adults. Why should a college cater to a small percentage of the student body? Why should they pay extra to a small group when other students have to struggle to pay their way and earn the college money in the form of grants?

3) Where will this money come from? An overwhelming majority of athletic departments lose money. You take money from other sports, you risk alienating other students, violating Title iX. Or do you increase your paying students costs? Or do you get more money from the taxpayers? None of this is fair when you consider the NPV of a free college education that the student athletes are already being paid. This is something they are paid for their athletic ability; something that they agreed to do when they accepted the scholarship; something they could have refused and had to pay for college like most of their fellow students.

Posted by slid64er on 6/9/2011 11:05:00 PM (view original):rmancil - You finally understand. It's socialist, not capitalist. Every educational institution is a non-profit. That's also why they support the NCAA and participate in intercollegiate athletics despite it being a money hole for >90% of them. Schools have a much larger mandate and the NCAA helps them fulfill it.

And besides, it's no one right to pursue a professional athletic career just as it's no one's right to be a doctor. It takes certain training and sacrifice in either case, but just because you want it doesn't mean that everyone else gets out of your way to make it easy for you. Yet you want to cater to that 0.1% that do make it. Tail wagging the dog.

Again, you also can't differentiate between an employee and student athlete. If you can't make the differentiation, that's on you. If you can't understand the cost/benefit analysis for all student athletes, that's on you too.

Anyway, I'm done. Believe what you want. I'm not going any further into a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

You like that tail wagging the dog a lot don't you? First off the non profit is a legalism in fact no school or organization can in fact run a loss year after year unless of course your the federal government and get to print the money every institution makes a profit.

On the professional front your a pro at anything when you cash a check. You may want to be a Doctor or a star QB but if you fail to have to brain power and the work ethic you won't be a doctor and if you lack the skill set no matter how smart you are you will not be a QB.

It is no mean trick to be a student and a employee.

When in doubt insult.

1) You fail to realize that receiving something for free that would otherwise cost money is actually receiving payment. The free tuition is payment. Any additional would open cans of worms that would allow the few rich schools to buy players and make it easier for schools to cheat under the guise of payments, They do receive a hefty payment.

2) Colleges are not businesses. Most are governemnt funded non-profit organizations that main purpose is to educate young adults. Why should a college cater to a small percentage of the student body? Why should they pay extra to a small group when other students have to struggle to pay their way and earn the college money in the form of grants?

3) Where will this money come from? An overwhelming majority of athletic departments lose money. You take money from other sports, you risk alienating other students, violating Title iX. Or do you increase your paying students costs? Or do you get more money from the taxpayers? None of this is fair when you consider the NPV of a free college education that the student athletes are already being paid. This is something they are paid for their athletic ability; something that they agreed to do when they accepted the scholarship; something they could have refused and had to pay for college like most of their fellow students.

mancil - did you look at the financial information? The most relevent number is "All Sports Expense to Revenue Difference" because whether you like it, want to accept it, admit it or not the revenue positive sports help fund all other sports. The pie you want to pass out isn't as large as you seem to believe it is. Also, that number does not reflect what funds may be earmarked for non-athletic budgets. You cannot just look at football revenue and make a blanket statement of how that should be left to the football program.
Do universities use football players to help raise funds for the school? Yes they do. Should the players therefor be paid for playing for that university? Absolutely not. Instead of all these comparisons between student athletes and mailroom clerks or whatever else, maybe compare it to fifth graders doing a walk-a-thon to raise money for cash strapped schools.... or selling candy... or cookies... or a million other fund raisers. Consider all the fund raisers student athletes do in high school... compare it even to high school football players out doing the annual fund raiser for the program. Are these athletes supposed to get paid now too? Afterall, the program/school is using them to raise funds and all the players get out of it is a better program, a chance for a better education and the opportunities thus resulting. By the prevailing logic these kids should all be paid for their efforts. Or does it only count if the numbers involved are big enough?

Posted by slid64er on 6/9/2011 11:05:00 PM (view original):rmancil - You finally understand. It's socialist, not capitalist. Every educational institution is a non-profit. That's also why they support the NCAA and participate in intercollegiate athletics despite it being a money hole for >90% of them. Schools have a much larger mandate and the NCAA helps them fulfill it.

And besides, it's no one right to pursue a professional athletic career just as it's no one's right to be a doctor. It takes certain training and sacrifice in either case, but just because you want it doesn't mean that everyone else gets out of your way to make it easy for you. Yet you want to cater to that 0.1% that do make it. Tail wagging the dog.

Again, you also can't differentiate between an employee and student athlete. If you can't make the differentiation, that's on you. If you can't understand the cost/benefit analysis for all student athletes, that's on you too.

Anyway, I'm done. Believe what you want. I'm not going any further into a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

You like that tail wagging the dog a lot don't you? First off the non profit is a legalism in fact no school or organization can in fact run a loss year after year unless of course your the federal government and get to print the money every institution makes a profit.

On the professional front your a pro at anything when you cash a check. You may want to be a Doctor or a star QB but if you fail to have to brain power and the work ethic you won't be a doctor and if you lack the skill set no matter how smart you are you will not be a QB.

It is no mean trick to be a student and a employee.

When in doubt insult.

1) You fail to realize that receiving something for free that would otherwise cost money is actually receiving payment. The free tuition is payment. Any additional would open cans of worms that would allow the few rich schools to buy players and make it easier for schools to cheat under the guise of payments, They do receive a hefty payment.

2) Colleges are not businesses. Most are governemnt funded non-profit organizations that main purpose is to educate young adults. Why should a college cater to a small percentage of the student body? Why should they pay extra to a small group when other students have to struggle to pay their way and earn the college money in the form of grants?

3) Where will this money come from? An overwhelming majority of athletic departments lose money. You take money from other sports, you risk alienating other students, violating Title iX. Or do you increase your paying students costs? Or do you get more money from the taxpayers? None of this is fair when you consider the NPV of a free college education that the student athletes are already being paid. This is something they are paid for their athletic ability; something that they agreed to do when they accepted the scholarship; something they could have refused and had to pay for college like most of their fellow students.

Did you look at any of the financial reports and links?

Only 7 D1-A schools athletic departments were self-sufficient for a recent 5 year program.

Posted by maddog63 on 6/10/2011 3:01:00 AM (view original):BTW -
for those that dont get it yet "All Sports Expense to Revenue Difference" basically means income minus expenses

Do we know what exactly constituted a revenue? What was considered an expense? In some non-profits, money transfers from other budgets are considered revenue, which would make the stated revenue not be representative of athletics only.

Posted by slid64er on 6/9/2011 11:05:00 PM (view original):rmancil - You finally understand. It's socialist, not capitalist. Every educational institution is a non-profit. That's also why they support the NCAA and participate in intercollegiate athletics despite it being a money hole for >90% of them. Schools have a much larger mandate and the NCAA helps them fulfill it.

And besides, it's no one right to pursue a professional athletic career just as it's no one's right to be a doctor. It takes certain training and sacrifice in either case, but just because you want it doesn't mean that everyone else gets out of your way to make it easy for you. Yet you want to cater to that 0.1% that do make it. Tail wagging the dog.

Again, you also can't differentiate between an employee and student athlete. If you can't make the differentiation, that's on you. If you can't understand the cost/benefit analysis for all student athletes, that's on you too.

Anyway, I'm done. Believe what you want. I'm not going any further into a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

You like that tail wagging the dog a lot don't you? First off the non profit is a legalism in fact no school or organization can in fact run a loss year after year unless of course your the federal government and get to print the money every institution makes a profit.

On the professional front your a pro at anything when you cash a check. You may want to be a Doctor or a star QB but if you fail to have to brain power and the work ethic you won't be a doctor and if you lack the skill set no matter how smart you are you will not be a QB.

It is no mean trick to be a student and a employee.

When in doubt insult.

1) You fail to realize that receiving something for free that would otherwise cost money is actually receiving payment. The free tuition is payment. Any additional would open cans of worms that would allow the few rich schools to buy players and make it easier for schools to cheat under the guise of payments, They do receive a hefty payment.

2) Colleges are not businesses. Most are governemnt funded non-profit organizations that main purpose is to educate young adults. Why should a college cater to a small percentage of the student body? Why should they pay extra to a small group when other students have to struggle to pay their way and earn the college money in the form of grants?

3) Where will this money come from? An overwhelming majority of athletic departments lose money. You take money from other sports, you risk alienating other students, violating Title iX. Or do you increase your paying students costs? Or do you get more money from the taxpayers? None of this is fair when you consider the NPV of a free college education that the student athletes are already being paid. This is something they are paid for their athletic ability; something that they agreed to do when they accepted the scholarship; something they could have refused and had to pay for college like most of their fellow students.

Did you look at any of the financial reports and links?

Only 7 D1-A schools athletic departments were self-sufficient for a recent 5 year program.

1) I don't fail to understand these players/performers are on a free ride ( scholarship) I think we all get that.It seems however that some here fail to understand the difference between elite div 1a football and high school athletics there clearly is a short fall on the comprehension of the difference money wise from a fundraising high school car wash and a network television muti million dollar contract based on entertainment value and advertising revenue potential. That disconnect appears to be " a bridge to far " for some to connect.

2)On the financial front div 1a football is making money like no other college sport and few other business in this country.

The argument that the schools take all of this money and spend it in some cases beyond the total revenue stream is the entire focus of the debate. The basic question is how they spend it and on whom they spend it.

3) Look at the big picture just a little closer, these schools and all of the departments spend all of their money every budget year and as a result need to raise tuition ask for more government subsidies and justify seeking a better tv contract or membership in another better paying conference. The idea of not spending more money every year is a concept that most average Americans understand however it seems to be one that the school administrator's don't.

The distribution of these funds is the question. Div 1 a football players work and I mean work at the game and are some of the best athletes in the world that is why the schools will make over 1 billion dollars this year off of their labor. The idea that these schools can spend it all with out a nickle going to the performers other than expanding their education and room- board is a poor one. Department heads will always spend every dime they can so they can justify their budget every year

One upon a time in this country some folks labored in the fields for room and board some also got a free education funny most folks look back on that time with regret.

Div 1 a football treatment of its talent is above and beyond those days however the concept is not that far removed.Anyone who doesn't see Div 1a football as big business is disconnected with reality.

If they were paid would that mean they would have a 4 year contract with the school? Or perhaps the contract should be they can not leave untill after they graduate with a 4 year degree.Could they be fired for poor preformance?

BTW the reference to slavery is in very poor taste, completely off base and frankly shows you either do not understand slavery and how truly horrible it was or you just chose a really poor way to try and prove a point.

rmancil, I am taking it for granted that you believe that if schools started paying their student athletes that it would "fix" this problem of cheating? I on the other hand think that it would probably inflate the issue! Now that the player can actually show he has money, he will not get caught when he buys things he could not otherwise afford that leads to investigations. We all know that whatever the student athletes get paid is not going to be enough for the "stud" recruit and that they will press for more because they feel they are worth it! No matter what you give them they will always want more or be offered more by schools trying to "woo" them to play for them. It will never stop, it will only get worse imo. Most of these kids that are getting paid to play now wouldn't get caught if their big ego's didn't get them caught. If they would just wait until they are done playing to go out and spend the money or just take a free Cobalt instead of a Corvette none of this would ever be found out. They are not programmed that way, they want the attention.....its in their DNA! More money only means more cheating!!!

Of course paying players would not stop some cheating however it would still be the right thing to do. You have to know it would help them and in some cases their families and it would go a long way in helping some deal with temptation. Crickett who said slavery was not horrible? Funny how you can claim to understand that bit of history better than anyone else is a extraordinary leap. Of course a player could be fired just as he can lose his scholarship now.

Posted by slid64er on 6/9/2011 11:05:00 PM (view original):rmancil - You finally understand. It's socialist, not capitalist. Every educational institution is a non-profit. That's also why they support the NCAA and participate in intercollegiate athletics despite it being a money hole for >90% of them. Schools have a much larger mandate and the NCAA helps them fulfill it.

And besides, it's no one right to pursue a professional athletic career just as it's no one's right to be a doctor. It takes certain training and sacrifice in either case, but just because you want it doesn't mean that everyone else gets out of your way to make it easy for you. Yet you want to cater to that 0.1% that do make it. Tail wagging the dog.

Again, you also can't differentiate between an employee and student athlete. If you can't make the differentiation, that's on you. If you can't understand the cost/benefit analysis for all student athletes, that's on you too.

Anyway, I'm done. Believe what you want. I'm not going any further into a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

You like that tail wagging the dog a lot don't you? First off the non profit is a legalism in fact no school or organization can in fact run a loss year after year unless of course your the federal government and get to print the money every institution makes a profit.

On the professional front your a pro at anything when you cash a check. You may want to be a Doctor or a star QB but if you fail to have to brain power and the work ethic you won't be a doctor and if you lack the skill set no matter how smart you are you will not be a QB.

It is no mean trick to be a student and a employee.

When in doubt insult.

1) You fail to realize that receiving something for free that would otherwise cost money is actually receiving payment. The free tuition is payment. Any additional would open cans of worms that would allow the few rich schools to buy players and make it easier for schools to cheat under the guise of payments, They do receive a hefty payment.

2) Colleges are not businesses. Most are governemnt funded non-profit organizations that main purpose is to educate young adults. Why should a college cater to a small percentage of the student body? Why should they pay extra to a small group when other students have to struggle to pay their way and earn the college money in the form of grants?

3) Where will this money come from? An overwhelming majority of athletic departments lose money. You take money from other sports, you risk alienating other students, violating Title iX. Or do you increase your paying students costs? Or do you get more money from the taxpayers? None of this is fair when you consider the NPV of a free college education that the student athletes are already being paid. This is something they are paid for their athletic ability; something that they agreed to do when they accepted the scholarship; something they could have refused and had to pay for college like most of their fellow students.

Did you look at any of the financial reports and links?

Only 7 D1-A schools athletic departments were self-sufficient for a recent 5 year program.

1) I don't fail to understand these players/performers are on a free ride ( scholarship) I think we all get that.It seems however that some here fail to understand the difference between elite div 1a football and high school athletics there clearly is a short fall on the comprehension of the difference money wise from a fundraising high school car wash and a network television muti million dollar contract based on entertainment value and advertising revenue potential. That disconnect appears to be " a bridge to far " for some to connect.

2)On the financial front div 1a football is making money like no other college sport and few other business in this country.

The argument that the schools take all of this money and spend it in some cases beyond the total revenue stream is the entire focus of the debate. The basic question is how they spend it and on whom they spend it.

3) Look at the big picture just a little closer, these schools and all of the departments spend all of their money every budget year and as a result need to raise tuition ask for more government subsidies and justify seeking a better tv contract or membership in another better paying conference. The idea of not spending more money every year is a concept that most average Americans understand however it seems to be one that the school administrator's don't.

The distribution of these funds is the question. Div 1 a football players work and I mean work at the game and are some of the best athletes in the world that is why the schools will make over 1 billion dollars this year off of their labor. The idea that these schools can spend it all with out a nickle going to the performers other than expanding their education and room- board is a poor one. Department heads will always spend every dime they can so they can justify their budget every year

One upon a time in this country some folks labored in the fields for room and board some also got a free education funny most folks look back on that time with regret.

Div 1 a football treatment of its talent is above and beyond those days however the concept is not that far removed.Anyone who doesn't see Div 1a football as big business is disconnected with reality.

2) Take out the government subsidies and budget transfers and athletic departments mostly lose money. Because of their funding from government, they cannot cater to the few and not offer it to everyone. the result would be loss of other programs. You cannot re-allocate the money without jeopardizing funding, compliance, or alienating other groups of students.

3) Comparing this to slavery is just ridiculous. Players choose whether to accept the scholarship. Nobody forces them to play college football. Nobody is threatening to beat them if they don't. They choose to do so in their own free will.

This comes down to entitlement. Many people work their butts off to go through college and earn their money when they find a job based upon their education and other credentials. Yet, football players, who already are paid via scholarship, are somehow entitled to extra? Other students who bring in research grants do not get paid. Or expect to be paid. They get the benefit of being able to use it on their resume, just like the football player gets to showcase his talents on the field. Besides, since you like comparing things to a business, what requires a business to re-distribute its earnings against its own interest? They agreed to forego revenue in exchange for a student activity. Why should they have to do more? If your employer paid your salary, would they be required to redistribute its profits to you or the owners? What if there is a loss?

Posted by cydrych on 6/10/2011 8:36:00 AM (view original):I think we all get your passion about this, rmancil. I just don't think your argument is as strong as you think it is and your attempt to tie slaves and the student-athlete together is over the line.

So now we should debate level of wrongness ?? Bottom line wrong is wrong.